NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Are the "major GIS vendors" the key client builders? Best - Simon
From: galeon-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [galeon-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jon Blower [jdb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent: Thursday, 25 September 2008 3:33 PM To: John Caron Cc: galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [galeon] WCS CF-netCDF profile document Hi John and Galeon folk, Excellent points. Just a couple of comments:So its important to acknowledge that WCS can bo things that opendap/netcdf cant.This is true, although this alone isn't a justification to spend huge effort designing and adopting a whole new protocol. Modifying existing protocols is another valid approach. Also, users don't type in WCS or OPeNDAP URLs manually - its done with a tool. Of course, this assumes we have CF-aware tools for every language, which we don't, so pushing this to the server is attractive.11. So can we use WCS to deliver data? Id say the current answer is "yes, but without clients, who cares?".Agreed - and I'm not convinced that the major GIS vendors are going to build good-quality clients in the foreseeable future. I've talked to a few GIS vendors informally and although they "buy" the WMS idea, they are much less convinced about WCS, WFS and so forth. They pay lip service to these standards to give the appearance of being "open" and "up with the game" but do not (yet) seem very interested in committing. This is probably partly due to conservatism and partly scepticism but also because they have their own proprietary data models and services that they want to keep pushing. Have others had different impressions of attitudes of GIS vendors? I think the solution to the client problem is to keep things simple and make it easy for client developers to do the right thing. Then we can make at least some progress. Complexity can come later following buy-in from users and software vendors. Jon
galeon archives: